As the AI landscape rapidly expands in India, a David-and-Goliath battle over a name is brewing. Anthropic Software Private Limited, an Indian startup based in Belagavi, has filed a lawsuit against Anthropic PBC, the well-funded US-based AI company, alleging trademark infringement and brand confusion. The heart of the matter? Both companies operate under the name "Anthropic".
The Indian firm, established in 2017, develops digital platforms for the education and government sectors, focusing on rural and underserved areas. Its offerings include an AI-enabled education ERP system, a competitive examination ecosystem, a Wi-Fi monetization platform, and a driving safety solution. Anthropic Software argues that the US company's entry into the Indian market has led to significant confusion among its customers and stakeholders, displacing its online visibility. They contend that search engines and AI-based platforms now prioritize the US entity, further exacerbating the issue.
Anthropic, the AI giant backed by significant investment and known for its AI assistant Claude, announced its expansion into India in October 2025, appointing Irina Ghose, former Microsoft India managing director, to lead local operations. This move intensified the focus on India as a key market for AI development and deployment.
Anthropic Software is seeking a permanent injunction, damages of 10 million rupees (approximately $110,000 USD), and the withdrawal of the US firm's services in India. The company's founder and director, Mohammad Ayyaz Mulla, stated that the intent is not confrontation but to achieve clarity over brand usage in India. Legal action, he said, would remain a fallback option if a resolution for coexistence cannot be found.
The Belagavi court has acknowledged the urgency of the dispute and has scheduled a hearing for February 16, 2026, after deciding to proceed without mediation. The court has issued notice to Anthropic, but declined to grant an interim injunction.
This case highlights the complexities of brand identity and intellectual property rights in a rapidly growing market like India. India's trademark regime prioritizes prior use, meaning the company that built goodwill first often has a stronger claim, regardless of later registrations. The Trade Marks Act of 1999 is used to determine whether the average consumer is likely to be misled.
Experts suggest that the court's decision on interim relief, the definition of overlapping services, and the potential for a settlement will be key indicators to watch. For customers and partners, maintaining continuity in contract names, billing entities, and support channels is crucial, even if branding adjustments occur.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how trademark disputes are handled in India's booming AI market, underscoring the importance of brand due diligence for companies expanding globally. The case also brings to light a broader challenge for local firms in fast-growing markets: the risk of being overshadowed online when well-funded global companies enter the scene with similar names.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the "Anthropic vs. Anthropic" case serves as a reminder that a name carries significant weight, particularly in a competitive and evolving landscape. As AI continues to reshape industries and societies, protecting brand identity will remain a critical concern for businesses of all sizes.